DreamSnipers:A rare time I am proud of my countries policies. We are actually standing up for freedom.

No. They're not. They're standing up for the ability to let the MPAA and associated lobbyists regulate the internet, instead of the UN.

That's all this is. And sure, protectionism is fine, but the bottom line is that I'd rather have the UN regulate the internet than the MPAA. Though either way is farked, and if it was up to me, the answer would be 'none of the above'.

tommyl66:cman: The Internet was created by us. The US did most the research, the US built most the backbones, the US set most the standards.

Do you think we would give up that kind of power? Hell no.

If UN wants control then they have to make their own, simple as that.

Coming soon, the UNternet!

June 24, 2019UNternet Relations Council

Dear UNternet user:

As you may have read in our previous 19 Strongly Worded Letters, we are asking that you desist from posting international copyrighted materials. You were recently observed uploading songs by Judas Priest, Abba, and Michael Bolton. We are demanding that this activity cease immediately, in accordance with UNRC resolution 41,874,303. If it does not, we reserve the right to, at some future date, authorize the appropriate authorities to take action. Until then, you have your warning(s).

starsrift:DreamSnipers: A rare time I am proud of my countries policies. We are actually standing up for freedom.

No. They're not. They're standing up for the ability to let the MPAA and associated lobbyists regulate the internet, instead of the UN.

That's all this is. And sure, protectionism is fine, but the bottom line is that I'd rather have the UN regulate the internet than the MPAA. Though either way is farked, and if it was up to me, the answer would be 'none of the above'.

This. The paid whores in DC cannot let the UN regulate what they have to let the US interests control.

It would ruin the NSA or MPAA or whoever wants to both sue us and wiretap our every online second if another agency had control.

I remember hearing about the sign thing as a kid. Even then I was like.. Why would you need that? Would an invading army not know how to read a map? Will they be unable to bring over any satellite pictures along with their tanks?

It's even stupider when you meet people who think that those signs are for the government for when they want to somehow invade their own country.

cadaver:I remember hearing about the sign thing as a kid. Even then I was like.. Why would you need that? Would an invading army not know how to read a map? Will they be unable to bring over any satellite pictures along with their tanks?

It's even stupider when you meet people who think that those signs are for the government for when they want to somehow invade their own country.

Those are the same idiots who think contrails are chemtrails. I wouldn't expect sound logic from them.

Faux News? No thanks.DNRTFAMy guess is some podunk, third-world country is petitioning to have the UN control the internet so they can enforce their backwards, retarded views. Russia, a farker says? You mean the country that just passed a law that blocked "blasphemous material" from the internet? Color me surprised.

DeathCipris:Faux News? No thanks.DNRTFAMy guess is some podunk, third-world country is petitioning to have the UN control the internet so they can enforce their backwards, retarded views. Russia, a farker says? You mean the country that just passed a law that blocked "blasphemous material" from the internet? Color me surprised.

Well it is true - but Fox is just trying to make the USA the only superhero - it's facing strong opposition from other nations, particularly because it is a closed-door conference.

Let's entertain for a moment that this did happen. What would stop Google or Amazon or some other large service from setting up their services directly with the customer? Or even setting up themselves with a company that customers would connect to that would directly interface with Google or Amazon. I mean, this could end up creating competing Internets... and look how well that worked out for AOL.

starsrift:DreamSnipers: A rare time I am proud of my countries policies. We are actually standing up for freedom.

No. They're not. They're standing up for the ability to let the MPAA and associated lobbyists regulate the internet, instead of the UN.

That's all this is. And sure, protectionism is fine, but the bottom line is that I'd rather have the UN regulate the internet than the MPAA. Though either way is farked, and if it was up to me, the answer would be 'none of the above'.

no regulation means your isp regulates, and charges or forbids you from visiting sites with which they don't have contracts. or something. there needs to be regulation because the private sector will fark the internet up.

think of it, how many internet service provider options to you have? maybe 2 or 3 at most. there is no competition (for me, it's either cable or dsl, you have 2 distinct options). they are aware of this and realize they have all of the bargaining power. these are the relationships where regulations are most important.

/ dnrtfa// but, i think there needs to be some internet regulation to protect users from providers./// but no regulation for content

pute kisses like a man:starsrift: DreamSnipers: A rare time I am proud of my countries policies. We are actually standing up for freedom.

No. They're not. They're standing up for the ability to let the MPAA and associated lobbyists regulate the internet, instead of the UN.

That's all this is. And sure, protectionism is fine, but the bottom line is that I'd rather have the UN regulate the internet than the MPAA. Though either way is farked, and if it was up to me, the answer would be 'none of the above'.

no regulation means your isp regulates, and charges or forbids you from visiting sites with which they don't have contracts. or something. there needs to be regulation because the private sector will fark the internet up.

think of it, how many internet service provider options to you have? maybe 2 or 3 at most. there is no competition (for me, it's either cable or dsl, you have 2 distinct options). they are aware of this and realize they have all of the bargaining power. these are the relationships where regulations are most important.

/ dnrtfa// but, i think there needs to be some internet regulation to protect users from providers./// but no regulation for content

Great Janitor:The UN or the MPAA/RIAA. Neither is a choice I want, but honestly, it's better the devil you know.

i agree, I'd take the UN as well. an international convention whose power is born of treaties with the goal towards a better world and humanitarian aid. or, a group of lobbyists who want to completely bottleneck the delivery of information so that prices can remain unnecessarily high.

pute kisses like a man:Great Janitor: The UN or the MPAA/RIAA. Neither is a choice I want, but honestly, it's better the devil you know.

i agree, I'd take the UN as well. an international convention whose power is born of treaties with the goal towards a better world and humanitarian aid. or, a group of lobbyists who want to completely bottleneck the delivery of information so that prices can remain unnecessarily high.

Better world? Have you ever seen the UN HRC memberships? Some of the worst HR violaters on the planet, and you think the UN running the internet will be a good thing?

think of it, how many internet service provider options to you have? maybe 2 or 3 at most. there is no competition (for me, it's either cable or dsl, you have 2 distinct options). they are aware of this and realize they have all of the bargaining power. these are the relationships where regulations are most important.

/ dnrtfa// but, i think there needs to be some internet regulation to protect users from providers./// but no regulation for content

Except they aren't discussing regulating service providers. They are discussing regulating content.

We are WAAAY too far beyond regulating service providers. I think in the late 90's when telco's started buying up small ISP's and making it insanely expensive for a non-telco ISP to offer ISDN, ADSL or SDSL services, is really when OUR government should have stepped in and said no to allowing a telco to provide internet services - but that didn't happen. And because that is local infrastructure, I don't see where the UN could stand on regulating that.

russsssman:Sounds like the US is starting to get a case of the Texans. Soon we'll all be wanting to secede from the UN.

When I was a teenager and being mind farked in school about the UN, I could not figure out why the world would not cooperate as it was a no brainer. How could the League of Nations fail?Now I know why the UN concept will never work, for all the good that does.

cadaver:I remember hearing about the sign thing as a kid. Even then I was like.. Why would you need that? Would an invading army not know how to read a map? Will they be unable to bring over any satellite pictures along with their tanks?

It's even stupider when you meet people who think that those signs are for the government for when they want to somehow invade their own country.

snocone:russsssman: Sounds like the US is starting to get a case of the Texans. Soon we'll all be wanting to secede from the UN.

When I was a teenager and being mind farked in school about the UN, I could not figure out why the world would not cooperate as it was a no brainer. How could the League of Nations fail?Now I know why the UN concept will never work, for all the good that does.

Are you saying as we speed toward "progress" while all agreeing the world isn't becoming a better place to live, it may not be as great as it sounds on paper?

russsssman:snocone: russsssman: Sounds like the US is starting to get a case of the Texans. Soon we'll all be wanting to secede from the UN.

When I was a teenager and being mind farked in school about the UN, I could not figure out why the world would not cooperate as it was a no brainer. How could the League of Nations fail?Now I know why the UN concept will never work, for all the good that does.

Are you saying as we speed toward "progress" while all agreeing the world isn't becoming a better place to live, it may not be as great as it sounds on paper?

Happy Hours:cadaver: I remember hearing about the sign thing as a kid. Even then I was like.. Why would you need that? Would an invading army not know how to read a map? Will they be unable to bring over any satellite pictures along with their tanks?

It's even stupider when you meet people who think that those signs are for the government for when they want to somehow invade their own country.

I guess I missed the whole thing. WTF?

Since I was one of the idiots putting those marks on the backs of those signs in the 60's, I am getting a kick,,That is the joke, son.

think of it, how many internet service provider options to you have? maybe 2 or 3 at most. there is no competition (for me, it's either cable or dsl, you have 2 distinct options). they are aware of this and realize they have all of the bargaining power. these are the relationships where regulations are most important.

/ dnrtfa// but, i think there needs to be some internet regulation to protect users from providers./// but no regulation for content

Except they aren't discussing regulating service providers. They are discussing regulating content.

We are WAAAY too far beyond regulating service providers. I think in the late 90's when telco's started buying up small ISP's and making it insanely expensive for a non-telco ISP to offer ISDN, ADSL or SDSL services, is really when OUR government should have stepped in and said no to allowing a telco to provide internet services - but that didn't happen. And because that is local infrastructure, I don't see where the UN could stand on regulating that.

well, i dnrtfa. that was properly disclosed. someday, my friend, someday i will read this article. but as i say to death, i say to this article, not today.

think of it, how many internet service provider options to you have? maybe 2 or 3 at most. there is no competition (for me, it's either cable or dsl, you have 2 distinct options). they are aware of this and realize they have all of the bargaining power. these are the relationships where regulations are most important.

/ dnrtfa// but, i think there needs to be some internet regulation to protect users from providers./// but no regulation for content

Except they aren't discussing regulating service providers. They are discussing regulating content.

We are WAAAY too far beyond regulating service providers. I think in the late 90's when telco's started buying up small ISP's and making it insanely expensive for a non-telco ISP to offer ISDN, ADSL or SDSL services, is really when OUR government should have stepped in and said no to allowing a telco to provide internet services - but that didn't happen. And because that is local infrastructure, I don't see where the UN could stand on regulating that.

well, i dnrtfa. that was properly disclosed. someday, my friend, someday i will read this article. but as i say to death, i say to this article, not today.

starsrift:"DreamSnipers: A rare time I am proud of my countries policies. We are actually standing up for freedom.

No. They're not. They're standing up for the ability to let the MPAA and associated lobbyists regulate the internet, instead of the UN."

What would you rather risk losing -- the freedom to share movies, or the right to speak your mind?

And what would you rather pay -- royalties on certain content, or across-the-board fees/taxes to pay a global conglomerate for the privilege of using something that was developed and built with your taxes in the first place?

ThoughtSpy:"The U.S. does not have veto power over resolutions adopted at this U.N. conference, but it does have the right not to implement regulations that are adopted."

So it's basically a dog and pony show that can be ignored, and all we voters need to do is make certain our Congresscritters don't try and use this as another power grab.

Don't go messing with our Internet. That would be the one thing that would get we basement dwellers to come out into the sun.

From a non-touchy-feely perspective, "US" "control" of the internet is a very good thing as far as national security goes. We don't actually "control" a damned thing in any major market. If we "turned off" the internet to China, for example, they'd just bring their own compartmentalized system online, same as France, Britain, Germany, etc. As far as routing goes, this is largely the case already. This gives us a bit more control to ensure that Amazon.com is always Amazon.com, for Americans.

UN control of the internet is a horrible idea because we're the big boys in the room (for now), and are relatively neutral (not counting antagonizing or enemy state and semi-state actors) in our administration. We won't deny a .net (for example) traffic simply because they compete with US companies, and we don't (simplifying here) throttle traffic *solely* based on where it's coming from. We always grant Americans access to the laughable DPRK website, a hostile state actor and nuclear threat. Do you think the DPRK would do the same?

Unfortunately, we can't be sure that the same will always be true with the UN. Does it seem fair from member nations' perspective? In many cases, no, but others don't care or support keeping it US (UK, Aus, Can, etc). Is it in the best interests for US national security, and by extension our closest allies (again, UK, Aus, Can)? Hell freaking yes. Is it currently "controlled" by a country with some of the most permissive speech rights in the world? ABSOLUTELY (I'm not a flag-waver, it's just accurate). I can be a nazi, a homosexual, a whatever, and say most of what I want to say. Nazi? Not in Germany. Homosexual? Not in Iran.